>
alan: [snip]
> [Severity: Medium]
> Can the first else branch inside if (survive_err) ever be reached, and does
> the second else branch log a misleading message on unsupported platforms?
>
> In drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c,
> xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable() immediately re-checks
> xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(xe) and returns 0 when it is false:
>
> int xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> struct xe_survivability *survivability = &xe->survivability;
> struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
>
> if (!xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(xe))
> return 0;
>
> And xe_survivability_mode_is_requested() returns false both when
> survivability is not requested and when the platform or VF does not support
> survivability mode:
>
> bool xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> ...
> if (!IS_DGFX(xe) || IS_SRIOV_VF(xe) || xe->info.platform <
> XE_BATTLEMAGE)
> return false;
>
> Because xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable() returns 0 whenever
> xe_survivability_mode_is_requested() is false:
>
> 1. In xe_device_probe_early(), when pcode_err is non-zero and
> survival_requested is false, survive_err will be 0 (unless the redundant
> second call to xe_survivability_mode_is_requested() reads a changed
> configfs or PCODE_SCRATCH(0) state, in which case survivability was
> actually requested). That makes the "Early pcode err(%pe), survivability
> not requested and unavailable(%pe)" branch unreachable under normal
> execution.
>
> 2. On integrated GPUs, SR-IOV VFs, or dGPUs prior to XE_BATTLEMAGE where
> survivability mode is unsupported (and where xe_config_device_is_visible()
> in drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_configfs.c hides attr_survivability_mode), an
> early pcode failure will have survive_err == 0 and survival_requested ==
> false, falling through to log "Consider xe_configfs" even though the
> survivability_mode configfs attribute is not available on that device.
>
> Should xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable() or its helper distinguish between
> "unsupported" and "not requested", and avoid calling
> xe_survivability_mode_is_requested() twice?
>
>
alan: Shasiko's points are valid. i dont want to refactor the original code and
change the flow, so i'll only limit
the messages so its never reflecting an invalid case.
